My servant repeatedly sleeps, but the bowl needs food.
Perhaps he may awake as I seize (his) foot with (my) mouth.
(Yes, he does this. It’s gentle and funny, but he does this.)
ˉ = Full beat
˘ = Half beat
° = Either a full or half beat may be used
ˉ ˘ ˘ = D = Dactyl (a metrical foot)
ˉ ˉ = S = Spondee (a metrical foot)
ˉ ˘ = T = Trochee (a metrical foot)
X = Either a dactyl or spondee may be used
Y = Either a spondee or a trochee may be used
Form = Elegiac Couplet
X / X / X / X / D / Y
X / X / ° || D / D / ˉ
* A note on scansion: if a word ends in a vowel, am, em, or um, AND the next word begins with a vowel, then the ending vowel (or am, em, um) of the first word is dropped completely (beat value and all) and the two words are joined. This is known as elision.
eget = egeo (egeo, -ēre, -ui), verb, 2nd conjugation, 3rd person, singular, present, active, indicative, meaning = it (crater) is in need (need). (While English may sometimes use the genitive: “is in need *of*,” Latin uses the ablative for verbs of needing, lacking, etc: “is in need *by means of*”)
escā = esca (esca, -ae), noun, 1st declension, singular, feminine, ablative, meaning = (by means of) food.
Forsitan = adverb, indeclinable, modifies excitet, meaning = perhaps.
excitet = excito (excito, -āre, -āvi, -atum), verb, 1st conjugation, 3rd person, singular, present, active, subjunctive, meaning = he (servus) may awake. (This form and use of the subjunctive conveys the idea of a potential action)
ut = conjunction (temporal), indeclinable, meaning = as (just as, at the same time as).
cum = preposition, indeclinable, meaning = with
ore = os (os, oris), noun, 3rd declension, singular, neuter, ablative, meaning = (by means of) mouth.
pedem = pes (pes, pedis), noun, 3rd declension, singular, masculine, accusative, meaning = foot.
capio = capio (capio, capere, cepi, captum), verb, 3rd conjugation, 1st person, singular, present, active, indicative, meaning = I seize.
* “Week” is a used here as to specify an undefined length of time, possibly at times equal to an actual week.
SpaceX lost out on an Air Force Launch Services Agreement (LSA) to three competitors: ULA; Blue Origin; and Northrop Grumman. Each of the other three got contracts. SpaceX unsuccessfully protested administratively and recently filed a complaint in the Court of Federal Claims.
Some source files on the SpaceX complaint are given below.
It’s hard to write anything detailed because we do not have access to the Air Force decision document, although SpaceX makes several references to errors in it.
I was reasonably familiar with what went on in Boeing’s protest of the Air Force KC-X contract. After that fiasco, one would think that the Air Force would not screw things up.
This is much different from the KC-X competition in that KC-X involved a limited number of very objective criteria/standards and parameters of actual aircraft that those standards could be applied to.
The LSA award involves a large number of fairly nebulous criteria and highly subjective speculation about meeting them.
In general, SpaceX’s complaint is well written and persuasive. Some of the Air Force decision logic is clearly bizarre.
One example of strangeness relates to the fact that the three winners are to be whittled down to two in Phase 2. Blue Origin has certain overlapping technologies with the other two winners. ULA is using a Blue Origin first stage engine and Blue Origin is using Northrop Grumman boosters. Thus, if Blue Origin moves on to Phase 2, it will be sharing a very significant source of project risk with the other winner. Thus, the program loses a key aspect of the redundancy and fault tolerance of having two providers.
Another example involves the Air Force being skeptical of SpaceX’s horizontal vehicle integration (assembling the rocket horizontally and then uprighting it for launch). But the Air Force counts this twice against SpaceX. First, they count horizontal integration as a program risk, then in the financial analysis they include the cost of adding vertical integration to SpaceX’s proposal which would moot the program risk.
Either SpaceX will win or I have another chapter in my book ”Everything I learned in Law School has been crapped upon by the last 20 years”.
At the point that Andrew Roberts sat down to write a new biography of Winston Churchill, there were a total of 1009 biographies of the man in print, examining every aspect of his life from a multitude of viewpoints. Works include the encyclopedic three-volume The Last Lion by William Manchester and Paul Reid, and Roy Jenkins’ single-volume Churchill: A Biography, which concentrates on Churchill’s political career. Such books may seem to many readers to say just about everything about Churchill there is to be said from the abundant documentation available for his life. What could a new biography possibly add to the story?
As the author demonstrates in this magnificent and weighty book (1152 pages, 982 of main text), a great deal. Earlier Churchill biographers laboured under the constraint that many of Churchill’s papers from World War II and the postwar era remained under the seal of official secrecy. These included the extensive notes taken by King George VI during his weekly meetings with the Prime Minister during the war and recorded in his personal diary. The classified documents were made public only fifty years after the end of the war, and the King’s wartime diaries were made available to the author by special permission granted by the King’s daughter, Queen Elizabeth II.
The royal diaries are an invaluable source on Churchill’s candid thinking as the war progressed. As a firm believer in constitutional monarchy, Churchill withheld nothing in his discussions with the King. Even the deepest secrets, such as the breaking of the German codes, the information obtained from decrypted messages, and atomic secrets, which were shared with only a few of the most senior and trusted government officials, were discussed in detail with the King. Further, while Churchill was constantly on stage trying to hold the Grand Alliance together, encourage Britons to stay in the fight, and advance his geopolitical goals which were often at variance with even the Americans, with the King he was brutally honest about Britain’s situation and what he was trying to accomplish. Oddly, perhaps the best insight into Churchill’s mind as the war progressed comes not from his own six-volume history of the war, but rather the pen of the King, writing only to himself. In addition, sources such as verbatim notes of the war cabinet, diaries of the Soviet ambassador to the U.K. during the 1930s through the war, and other recently-disclosed sources resulted in, as the author describes it, there being something new on almost every page.
The biography is written in an entirely conventional manner: the author eschews fancy stylistic tricks in favour of an almost purely chronological recounting of Churchill’s life, flipping back and forth from personal life, British politics, the world stage and Churchill’s part in the events of both the Great War and World War II, and his career as an author and shaper of opinion.
Winston Churchill was an English aristocrat, but not a member of the nobility. A direct descendant of John Churchill, the 1st Duke of Marlborough, his father, Lord Randolph Churchill, was the third son of the 7th Duke of Marlborough. As only the first son inherits the title, although Randolph bore the honorific “Lord”, he was a commoner and his children, including first-born Winston, received no title. Lord Randolph was elected to the House of Commons in 1874, the year of Winston’s birth, and would serve until his death in 1895, having been Chancellor of the Exchequer, Leader of the House of Commons, and Secretary of State for India. His death, aged just forty-five (rumoured at the time to be from syphilis, but now attributed to a brain tumour, as his other symptoms were inconsistent with syphilis), along with the premature deaths of three aunts and uncles at early ages, convinced the young Winston his own life might be short and that if he wanted to accomplish great things, he had no time to waste.
In terms of his subsequent career, his father’s early death might have been an unappreciated turning point in Winston Churchill’s life. Had his father retired from the House of Commons prior to his death, he would almost certainly have been granted a peerage in return for his long service. When he subsequently died, Winston, as eldest son, would have inherited the title and hence not been entitled to serve in the House of Commons. It is thus likely that had his father not died while still an MP, the son would never have had the political career he did nor have become prime minister in 1940.
Young, from a distinguished family, wealthy (by the standards of the average Briton, but not compared to the landed aristocracy or titans of industry and finance), ambitious, and seeking novelty and adventures to the point of recklessness, the young Churchill believed he was meant to accomplish great things in however many years Providence might grant him on Earth. In 1891, at the age of just 16, he confided to a friend,
I can see vast changes coming over a now peaceful world, great upheavals, terrible struggles; wars such as one cannot imagine; and I tell you London will be in danger — London will be attacked and I shall be very prominent in the defence of London. … This country will be subjected, somehow, to a tremendous invasion, by what means I do not know, but I tell you I shall be in command of the defences of London and I shall save London and England from disaster. … I repeat — London will be in danger and in the high position I shall occupy, it will fall to me to save the capital and save the Empire.
He was, thus, from an early age, not one likely to be daunted by the challenges he assumed when, almost five decades later at an age (66) when many of his contemporaries retired, he faced a situation uncannily similar to that he imagined in boyhood.
Churchill’s formal education ended at age 20 with his graduation from the military academy at Sandhurst and commissioning as a second lieutenant in the cavalry. A voracious reader, he educated himself in history, science, politics, philosophy, literature, and the classics, while ever expanding his mastery of the English language, both written and spoken. Seeking action, and finding no war in which he could participate as a British officer, he managed to persuade a London newspaper to hire him as a war correspondent and set off to cover an insurrection in Cuba against its Spanish rulers. His dispatches were well received, earning five guineas per article, and he continued to file dispatches as a war correspondent even while on active duty with British forces. By 1901, he was the highest-paid war correspondent in the world, having earned the equivalent of £1 million today from his columns, books, and lectures.
He subsequently saw action in India and the Sudan, participating in the last great cavalry charge of the British army in the Battle of Omdurman, which he described along with the rest of the Mahdist War in his book, The River War. In October 1899, funded by the Morning Post, he set out for South Africa to cover the Second Boer War. Covering the conflict, he was taken prisoner and held in a camp until, in December 1899, he escaped and crossed 300 miles of enemy territory to reach Portugese East Africa. He later returned to South Africa as a cavalry lieutenant, participating in the Siege of Ladysmith and capture of Pretoria, continuing to file dispatches with the Morning Post which were later collected into a book.
Upon his return to Britain, Churchill found that his wartime exploits and writing had made him a celebrity. Eleven Conservative associations approached him to run for Parliament, and he chose to run in Oldham, narrowly winning. His victory was part of a massive landslide by the Unionist coalition, which won 402 seats versus 268 for the opposition. As the author notes,
Before the new MP had even taken his seat, he had fought in four wars, published five books,… written 215 newspaper and magazine articles, participated in the greatest cavalry charge in half a century and made a spectacular escape from prison.
This was not a man likely to disappear into the mass of back-benchers and not rock the boat.
Churchill’s views on specific issues over his long career defy those who seek to put him in one ideological box or another, either to cite him in favour of their views or vilify him as an enemy of all that is (now considered) right and proper. For example, Churchill was often denounced as a bloodthirsty warmonger, but in 1901, in just his second speech in the House of Commons, he rose to oppose a bill proposed by the Secretary of War, a member of his own party, which would have expanded the army by 50%. He argued,
A European war cannot be anything but a cruel, heart-rending struggle which, if we are ever to enjoy the bitter fruits of victory, must demand, perhaps for several years, the whole manhood of the nation, the entire suspension of peaceful industries, and the concentrating to one end of every vital energy in the community. … A European war can only end in the ruin of the vanquished and the scarcely less fatal commercial dislocation and exhaustion of the conquerors. Democracy is more vindictive than Cabinets. The wars of peoples will be more terrible than those of kings.
Bear in mind, this was a full thirteen years before the outbreak of the Great War, which many politicians and military men expected to be short, decisive, and affordable in blood and treasure.
Churchill, the resolute opponent of Bolshevism, who coined the term “Cold War”, was the same person who said, after Stalin’s annexation of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia in 1939, “In essence, the Soviet’s Government’s latest actions in the Baltic correspond to British interests, for they diminish Hitler’s potential Lebensraum. If the Baltic countries have to lose their independence, it is better for them to be brought into the Soviet state system than the German one.”
Churchill, the champion of free trade and free markets, was also the one who said, in March 1943,
You must rank me and my colleagues as strong partisans of national compulsory insurance for all classes for all purposes from the cradle to the grave. … [Everyone must work] whether they come from the ancient aristocracy, or the ordinary type of pub-crawler. … We must establish on broad and solid foundations a National Health Service.
And yet, just two years later, contesting the first parliamentary elections after victory in Europe, he argued,
No Socialist Government conducting the entire life and industry of the country could afford to allow free, sharp, or violently worded expressions of public discontent. They would have to fall back on some form of Gestapo, no doubt very humanely directed in the first instance. And this would nip opinion in the bud; it would stop criticism as it reared its head, and it would gather all the power to the supreme party and the party leaders, rising like stately pinnacles above their vast bureaucracies of Civil servants, no longer servants and no longer civil.
Among all of the apparent contradictions and twists and turns of policy and politics there were three great invariant principles guiding Churchill’s every action. He believed that the British Empire was the greatest force for civilisation, peace, and prosperity in the world. He opposed tyranny in all of its manifestations and believed it must not be allowed to consolidate its power. And he believed in the wisdom of the people expressed through the democratic institutions of parliamentary government within a constitutional monarchy, even when the people rejected him and the policies he advocated.
Today, there is an almost reflexive cringe among bien pensants at any intimation that colonialism might have been a good thing, both for the colonial power and its colonies. In a paragraph drafted with such dry irony it might go right past some readers, and reminiscent of the “What have the Romans done for us?” scene in Life of Brian, the author notes,
Today, of course, we know imperialism and colonialism to be evil and exploitative concepts, but Churchill’s first-hand experience of the British Raj did not strike him that way. He admired the way the British had brought internal peace for the first time in Indian history, as well as railways, vast irrigation projects, mass education, newspapers, the possibilities for extensive international trade, standardized units of exchange, bridges, roads, aqueducts, docks, universities, an uncorrupt legal system, medical advances, anti-famine coordination, the English language as the first national lingua franca, telegraphic communication and military protection from the Russian, French, Afghan, Afridi and other outside threats, while also abolishing suttee (the practice of burning widows on funeral pyres), thugee (the ritualized murder of travellers) and other abuses. For Churchill this was not the sinister and paternalist oppression we now know it to have been.
This is a splendid in-depth treatment of the life, times, and contemporaries of Winston Churchill, drawing upon a multitude of sources, some never before available to any biographer. The author does not attempt to persuade you of any particular view of Churchill’s career. Here you see his many blunders (some tragic and costly) as well as the triumphs and prescient insights which made him a voice in the wilderness when so many others were stumbling blindly toward calamity. The very magnitude of Churchill’s work and accomplishments would intimidate many would-be biographers: as a writer and orator he published thirty-seven books totalling 6.1 million words (more than Shakespeare and Dickens put together) and won the Nobel Prize in Literature for 1953, plus another five million words of public speeches. Even professional historians might balk at taking on a figure who, as a historian alone, had, at the time of his death, sold more history books than any historian who ever lived.
Andrew Roberts steps up to this challenge and delivers a work which makes a major contribution to understanding Churchill and will almost certainly become the starting point for those wishing to explore the life of this complicated figure whose life and works are deeply intertwined with the history of the twentieth century and whose legacy shaped the world in which we live today. This is far from a dry historical narrative: Churchill was a master of verbal repartee and story-telling, and there are a multitude of examples, many of which will have you laughing out loud at his wit and wisdom.
I realize that this may fall somewhere between Swift and Wells, but I woud like to consider the implications of a real guest worker program.
I had this thought upon watching a video about South Korea and their “overqualified” workforce, wherein a glut of college-educated workforce (as a demographic stratum) exists beside a crushing shortage of unskilled and low-skill labor. The country is arguably over-educated. Sound familiar? This is the condition that the United States is in if we include only citizens.
So how will South Korea keep the envelopes stuffed and the burgers cooked when everybody in the country expects jobs writing the letters and managing the restaurants — as entry positions?
Obviously, the labor will come from elsewhere — it already does. Japan and the US have this issue as well, as does all of Europe, and pretty much any country more than a generation removed from a peasant culture. Japan has hung on the hardest, clinging to its culture (which includes neither guns nor bibles) such that they would rather grow old and die alone than allow their culture to be washed away in a tide of peasant labor. The United States is rather more closely eyeing Europe’s solution, which is to declare our own culture suspect and dirty, the peasants clean and noble, and prostrate ourselves for enrichment by savages.
South Korea with its insularity even moire virulent than that of japan, and with none of the suppressed war guilt, provides an excellent laboratory for observation. And of course, there is the possiblity that the United States will actually discover a plan which is both workable and accomplishable.
Assuming for a moment that technology , administration, enforcement, and political will are adequate to the task, I very much like the idea of a guest worker program. There must be a way to make the case that cheap grapes are the product not only of the destruction of the American culture, but also the exploitation of an underclass. We should be able to offer a handsome package to guest workers which does not include citizenship, the vote, or permanent residence. And with fair compensation comes the moral stance to remind people (both the guests and the open-borders crowd) that at the end of the contract comes a trip back home.
Something like this is already on the books in various forms, but it has been lost in the hue and cry led by the open-borders and Death to America crowd.
If there is a way to chip away at the bloc which supports these fifth columnists, perhaps it includes a return to discussions of a stable moderate position.
Aw, who am I kidding? Seal the border! Bring on the war! You know why? Because any reasonable approach will only be co-opted in our thoroughly Marxified condition. There is no good deed for which we will not be punished, no accepting stance which will not be called offensive, no compromise position which will not become an unacceptable affront the moment we step back to the compromise. Perhaps it is not too late for South Korea and Japan to preserve their cultures and very peoples without a fight. Western Europe is lost, and the United States will not be salvaged without a war.
Thanks, Obama! We have been fundamentally transformed.
The good fight never ends. This means that there is no middle, there’s no penultimate struggle leading to final victory, and there’s no one battle that really counts. However, there’s good reason to believe that this is a particularly important time — we’re winning.
Never mind all of the hub-bub with investigations, tax returns, scandals, and so forth. This is the beast thrashing about because it si wounded. That makes it dangerous, but the opposite of invulnerable, and it constitutes proof that we not only can harm it — we are harming it.
Keep the faith — stay happy, warriors! Support those who need it. Encourage those who become discouraged.
Stay in the fight and be of good cheer. After all — we are winning.
The Central Plains took it in the shorts again overnight. Among the bulls-eyes was Jefferson City, Missouri.
Here are two quotes:
Debris from the “wedge” tornado was lofted up to 13,000 feet, according to radar estimates, and may have been falling out northeast of the city. A tornado warning was first issued for Cole County, of which Jefferson City is the county seat, at 11:08 p.m., roughly 35 minutes before the tornado hit the city.
The first link in that quote goes to a tweet from a guy analyzing the radar data:
Debris from the Jefferson City tornado is still falling out of the storm after half an hour and about 20 miles downstream.
The New York legislature just passed what is essentially a bill of attainder against Trump, to aid the House Dems in getting his state tax returns. Oh, in the final version of course, it would apply to all New York citizens, but it’s clear from the legislative history and the current context that Trump is the impetus and the target.
Trump’s presidency is beginning to remind me of the myths and practices concerning ritual sacrifice of kings, many instances of which Frazer detailed in The Golden Bough. Just recently I read it’s now believed that the “bog people” dug up in Ireland were Celtic Kings sacrificed with varying degrees of torture. Death by a thousand cuts.
I think it was in Frazer that I read about some culture on the Indian continent, wherein the king would reign for a year, and then he ‘d have to stand on a stage in front of the people and hack himself to death, piece by piece, until blood loss brought him down.
In other instances, the reigning King and the successor fight, an dits always the old king who dies.
Even while His Highness capered about brandishing his severed nose and other appendages, or as the challenger, the preordained victor, administered the quietus, men were lining up to be the next king.
Do they believe somehow that their own turn to die horribly will not come? Or is the promise of a year of luxury and obeisance a good and sufficient trade off?
Trump is not getting even a momentary respite from the Demoncrats’ pitchforks. While he faces down one tormentor,another is attacking from behind. He is suffering the thousand cuts.
And yet we have a record number of contenders to take his place.
Do they think that, this custom now having been demonstrated, yet it will not happen to them? Or do they consider it a worthwhile trade-off to occupy the seat of power even for a short while?
I was on the RAMU and TKC was sharing something I heard before. The best way to communicate is with a story. The power of the story is not with facts and figures but with how easy it is to paint images on our minds. Take the story of the Three Little Pigs. It teaches the lesson of being prepared for when the “wolf comes to the door”. Even now we can hear the parent’s voice doing the parts.
Wolf: “Little pig, little pig, let me come in.”
Pig: “No, no, by the hair on my chinny chin chin.”
Wolf: “Then I’ll huff, and I’ll puff, and I’ll blow your house in.”(I didn’t realize till now that the part I quoted rhymed, in-chin-in. )
I believe conservatives are losing because they often don’t know how to tell a story. The left take the narrative “high ground” and we are come up with charts and Powerpoints.
Take any issue. Can you make a simple and easy to understand story to get it across? Does the story relate to people? Does the story have suspense or a surprise? Sometimes a good joke is the story that changes everyone’s mind.
On a related note, I think the reason the president does so well is his nicknames tell a story. We look at the person and recall the nickname and fill things in. “Sleepy Joe” is a guy who gets by in life and wakes up says a few words and then goes back to sleep. “Low Energy Jeb” is a nice guy but can’t fight his way out of a sack. “Crooked Hillary” is a person who took too many short cuts in life.
… is Might. Rule, Britannia! I’ll dump Brexit things in here throughout the day. Stay tuned.
Here’s Corbyn, doing for May and her most recent “shrunken, re-heated deal”:
My comment on the sign language lady:
Just transxifed by the sign language lady. Given a little reflection, it actually seems a reqponsible and neutral way to effectively communicate the full impact of what Corbyn (the rogue) is saying. She is adding the nuance from Corbyn’s bitter sarcasm and contempt. Maybe sign language lady is always like this — I don;t know. But I’ll say that she’s good at interpreting Corbyn 🙂
And here’s an excellent comment on the Trumpish situation that Britons now find themselves in:
“This government is too weak and divided”… Quite right… But so are you and the opposition Mr Corbyn! The 2 main parties are utterly useless… Remainers and leavers can at least agree on that. It’s Labour fudge or Tory fudge. Wouldn’t waste a vote on either. The clear choice for remainers is Lib Dems or Greens, clear choice for leavers is Brexit Party or UKIP. No need for the 2 utterly useless main parties. And yes I know there are other issues but the fact is they will continue to be ignored as long as Brexit drags on.
Well said, anonymous internet dude!
A surprisingly accurate comedy explanation of the Brexit mess:
As Rick points out, it’s the beginning of the end of the middle. THis is true for more than just the establishment’s coup attempt.
I feel fair-to-middling about Trump’s chances in 2020, so I’m neither giddy nor despondent. Priorities must lead the task list, or they are no longer priorities. What if there are more important things than getting re-elected?
I’m not sure what is in Trump’s heart, but he has here an excellent opportunity to reveal the GOP establishment for the cowardly little creature that it is. He could force a series of confrontations knowing that the Republicans will defect, making the defections obvious, public. Or he can try for “deals” which are neither permanent nor likely to be acted upon even as the law requires.
When Trump goes into the room to negotiate with the GOP, I hope he comes out with its beating heart held high.